Tribunals cannot direct govt. to frame policy: SC judgment

Tribunals cannot direct govt. to frame policy: SC judgment

Subject : Polity

Section: Judiciary

Context: 

• In a recent judgment on an appeal filed by the Union of India under Section 31(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the Supreme Court emphasized that a tribunal cannot direct the framing of government policy.

Key Points from the Supreme Court Ruling:

• Scope of Tribunal Powers:
  • The Supreme Court held that a tribunal, functioning within the confines of governing legislation, lacks the authority to direct the formulation of government policy. 
  • The court emphasized that even in Writ jurisdiction, which deals with fundamental rights, the judiciary does not possess the power to dictate policy formation.
• Nature of Tribunal Functions:
  • The court highlighted that a tribunal operates as a quasi-judicial body, adhering to the parameters set by the governing legislation.
  • While acknowledging the tribunal’s jurisdiction over disputes related to promotions and vacancies, it clarified that directing those responsible for policy-making to formulate a policy in a specific manner is beyond the tribunal’s purview.
• Case Background:
  • The appeal involved a respondent commissioned in the Administrative Branch of the Indian Air Force, challenging the non-formation of a policy for filling the vacancy of Air Vice Marshal (AVM) JAG (Air). 
  • Despite participating in the Promotion Board of 2015, the respondent contested the lack of a policy for promotions to AVM.
• Hierarchy of Tribunals:
  • The Supreme Court observed that under Article 323 B of the Constitution, which authorizes the establishment of tribunals for various matters, a hierarchy of tribunals may be created. However, it reiterated that the role of tribunals is adjudicatory, not policy formulation.
• Promotion Board Recommendations:
  • The court clarified that recommendations from a promotion board are recommendatory and require approval from the competent authority.
  • Challenging the basis of promotion after participating in the promotion process and being declared unsuccessful is not a valid ground to impugn the policy/method.
• Role of the Judiciary:
  • Emphasizing that the making of policy falls outside the judiciary’s domain, the court underscored that tribunals, being quasi-judicial bodies, are similarly restricted in directing the framing of policies.